Wednesday, January 25, 2012

As discussed at the DCRP Central Committee meeting last night, there is a real (and extremely dangerous) movement known as the 'National Popular Vote Compact'.

The agreement is aimed at circumventing the Electoral College Process, thus taking away the input of states guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution under, Article II, Section 1 which states, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….".

The idea involves a compact between member states promising their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote, thus rendering the Electoral College Process irrelevant. In order to accomplish this goal, the compact requires 270 electoral votes which could be accomplished through as little as 11 states, rather than the 38 required to amend the U.S. Constitution.

The compact has already been encacted by eight states and D.C., garnering a total of 132 electoral votes (California, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont and Washington). Almost half way there!!!

Why is this dangerous?

• Non-member states become irrelevant• Small states such as Nebraska and Iowa become irrelevant.• Large liberal cities such as NY, Chicago and L.A would decide our elections for us.• Guarantees candidates would ignore non-member states.• Deliver's non-member states to the mercy of large liberal cities.

The compact was unanimously opposed by the NEGOP at the State Central Committee meeting on Saturday. It guarantees Nebraska's irrelevance. It guarantees the Democratic Party's dominance. It saddles the country with the same liberal policies that have destroyed and continue to hold down the same large liberal cities that would control the country.

But the compact is already being pushed at the state level. State Senator Ken Haar (D), introduced LB 583 last year and it currently sits before the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee chaired by Senator, Bill Avery (D).

And Iowa was afraid their caucus would become irrelevant? Candidates would skip non-member states all together!

read more ('National Popular Vote Compact')http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

and more (Objective Conservative)http://objectiveconservative.blogspot.com/2012/01/republicans-go-on-record-opposing.html

Notice the states with the highest unemployment are all those blue states that harbor those large liberal cities. In fact, most are the very states that have already adopted the "National Popular Vote Compact". Gee...why could that be? Because they have no money and no jobs, and this way they can put a government in place that will "take care of them" by taking the wealth from the other states (like us) and giving it to them. Remember, they don't need us anymore, they don't owe us anything, but they have to keep those member states happy because they control the elections!!! Soon...Nebraska and the rest of the nation will all be without jobs or money and look just like those other blue states that lead the nation in poverty and unemployment.

Now take a look at cities with the highest poverty rates. As you can see, most are cities in blue liberal states, but more importantly...let's take a look at specific cities that have a long history of being ran by democratic leadership:

http://by106w.bay106.mail.live.com/mail/InboxLight.aspx?FolderID=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000005&InboxSortAscending=False&InboxSortBy=Date&n=1375334856According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly a third of the residents in Detroit, Michigan, and Buffalo, New York are living beneath the poverty line, the highest rates among large cities in the entire country. Detroit hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961. Buffalo started putting a Democrat in office back in 1954, and it hasn't stopped since. Cincinnati, Ohio(third on the poverty rate list), hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1984. Cleveland, Ohio (fourth on the list), has been led by a Democrat since 1989. St. Louis, Missouri(sixth), hasn't had a Republican since 1949, Milwaukee, Wisconsin(eighth), since 1908, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania(ninth), since 1952 and Newark, New Jersey(10th), since 1907. The only two cities in the top 10 that I didn't mention (Miami, Florida, and El Paso, Texas) haven't had Republicans in office either -- just Democrats, independents or nonpartisans.

So...in summary...Why would someone who is a liberal or democrat want to oppose circumventing the Constitution like this?! Well...besides the fact that the Constitution was set up to protect us all (not just conservatives)...you also may wish to oppose this if you wish to keep your job and live above the poverty line!!! Being a liberal is only fun while there is wealth to redistribute. Once everyone is drug into poverty...it becomes much more difficult to live at other's expense!!!

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

What a man produces is what he can bid for the produce of others. The value of what he creates – that is, its value to others – represents his effective demand in the marketplace. If he produces nothing, if what he produces has no value (mud pies), if what he produces loses its value (stone knives in the Bronze Age), or if he produces more than can be consumed (houses after a housing bubble has burst), he has no effective demand though his needs be unchanged.

Say’s Law

This restates Say’s Law, which Keynes in his General Theory popularly, though misleadingly, formulated as: Supply creates its own demand – misleading because a supply of goods with no value yields no effective demand and because supply that does have value to others does not create effective demand, it is effective demand.

What Keynesians do not understand is that if a man is hired to dig holes and then fill them back up, he is fully employed but he produces nothing of value; effective demand is not increased by his efforts. Nor does giving him money or goods in exchange for his useless labor create effective demand; it only shifts it from the people who produced what was given him.

Only production creates effective demand and only after what was produced is sold can other goods can be purchased and consumed. What changed England was not increased consumption but increased production, production that made increased consumption possible.